[Advaita-l] dva suparNA
agnimile at gmail.com
Fri Nov 13 00:17:22 CST 2015
Namaste Sri Chandramouliji,
Good to hear from you! Interesting observation.
I believe in BSB 1.2.12 AchArya is referring to Brahman quite explicitly.
न ह्यत्र शारीरः क्शेत्रग्यः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिना संसारधर्मेणोपेतो
विवक्ष्यते । कथं तर्हि? सर्वसंसारधर्मातीतो ब्रह्मस्वभाव
And he goes on to quote क्शेतररग्यं चापि मां विद्धि in support of equating
क्शेत्रज्ञ and ब्रह्म!
Because the second bird does not have kartritva/bhoktritva and from
AchArya's use of chaitanyamAtram in describing Brahma svabhAva, it's
probably reasonable to conclude he is referring to nirguNa brahman?
On 13 Nov 2015 05:56, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sri Siva Senani Ji and Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
> It is not only with reference to PRB that Sri Bhagavatpada has
> interpreted Kshetragna as referring to Iswara ( and not Brahman as
> mentioned by Sri Venkatraghavan Ji ) . Even in BG Ch 13 quoted by Sri Siva
> Senani Ji , Sri Bhagavatpada has interpreted the same way in his Bhashya on
> verse 2 quoted below.
> क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत ।
> क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम ॥ २ ॥
> क्षेत्रज्ञं यथोक्तलक्षणं चापि मां परमेश्वरम् असंसारिणं विद्धि जानीहि ।
> सर्वक्षेत्रेषु यः क्षेत्रज्ञः
> ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तानेकक्षेत्रोपाधिप्रविभक्तः, तं निरस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदं
> सदसदादिशब्दप्रत्ययागोचरं विद्धि इति अभिप्रायः ।
> Only if Kshetragna is interpreted as Iswara will the first part of this
> verse be meaningful, not if it is interpreted as Jiva.
> My 2 cents view.
> Pranams and Regards
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> Sri Siva Senani,
>> Great email. Thank you.
>> Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada has a slightly different but nevertheless
>> interesting interpretation to the mantra in his Brahma Sutra BhAshyam from
>> a Paingi Rahasya BrAhmaNa (PRB) context in his commentary on sutra 1.2.12.
>> To the pUrva pakshi who argues based on PRB that the birds refer to sattva
>> (the eating bird) and kshetragya, Shankara replies by saying that the
>> kshetragya here is "not presented here as endowed with such worldly
>> qualities as agentship and doership" but is "presented as free from all
>> worldly qualities and identical in nature with Brahman Itself" (Sw.
>> GambhirAnanda's translation, p.125).
>> Kshetragya in this context, is Brahman Itself.
>> Don't want to confuse readers, but thought this was a different reading of
>> the word 'kshetragya', to merit attention.
>> On 12 Nov 2015 19:01, "Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > From: Harsha Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 7:37 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Knowledge of Brahman
>> > Can any one tell ,what adi shankara says for dwe suparne mantra...Or in
>> > other words can any one give english translation for dwe suparne mantra
>> > from shankaracharya bhashya..Please..
>> > ------------------------
>> > Before giving the gist of what Bhagavatpada says, a few words of
>> > introduction are in order.
>> > First, Saastra should be approached with Sraddhaa, i.e. a belief that
>> > the Saastras and Guru (Bhagavatpaada, in the present case) are right and
>> > they can help us achieve the ultimate. Without this Sraddhaa, studying
>> > Saastras will not achieve any purpose. In other words, their real
>> > would not be understood. Specifically khanDana etc. should not precede
>> > understanding, it should follow understanding. One should first read
>> > prakaraNagranthas, understand the broad tenets of Saastra first and then
>> > read in depth to appreciate the nuances and then engage with other
>> > so that one's own understanding is tested and strengthened. Of course,
>> > after following a careful routine, if one is convinced that the school
>> > studied is flawed and another school is better, one should surely follow
>> > whatever one deems best. Even so, what happens when one is in the
>> > of studying, but is confused by other thoughts, by suggestions etc.?
>> > not the forum help? I would advise either isolation of the source of
>> > confusion, or a period of purposeful study, rather than engagement with
>> > second-hand summaries (it is like learning rocket science from
>> > However, still sometimes if it is inevitable, well, here goes the
>> > explanation:
>> > Second - this is both a preliminary and an introduction to the
>> > on the mantra - it needs to be understood that Vedic sentences, in the
>> > context of an Advaita vs. Others kind of debate, are of two types:
>> > BhedaSruti, emphasising difference, and AbhedaSruti, emphasising
>> > non-difference. The existence of these two types of sentences is not
>> > disputed by anybody. What happens, is depending on the school, one set
>> > sentences is given primacy and the other set is interpreted so as to
>> > conform to one's own siddhaanta. Advaita "explains away" the various
>> > bhedaSrutis according to non-Advaitins and the reverse is held to be
>> > by Advaitins. So what is the right interpretation? Obviously one would
>> > to take an overall view. Many western scholars, who do not suffer from
>> > feelings of inadequacy and are supremely sure of their positions even
>> > though they change over time (say Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky),
>> take a
>> > stance that they understand the intent of the Upanishads, of Sutrakara,
>> > Bhashyakar and that either the Sutrakara or Bhashyakara (why, even
>> > UpanishadkRt in their view) erred, or deviated at such and such places.
>> > Traditional scholars, who are more careful, tend to look to tradition
>> > because the tradition consists of their wellwishers primarily. That's
>> > Sraddhaa comes in.
>> > Now in the present mantra, Sankaracarya explains that the two birds
>> > referred to are Jiva and Isvara. The same two are described as the
>> > Ksharapurusha and Aksharapurusha by Bhagavaan in Purushottamapraaptiyoga
>> > (Ch 15, verse 16) of Bhagavadgita. There, it will be recalled, is said:
>> > उत्त्मः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः (15.17) -- There is a third
>> > purusha called Paramatman = Parabrahman. Here are extracts from the
>> > with translation:
>> > अयं हि वृक्ष ऊर्ध्वमूलोऽवाक्शाखोऽश्वत्थोऽव्यक्तमूलप्रभवः क्षेत्रसंज्ञकः
>> > सर्वप्राणिकर्मफलाश्रयः, तं परिष्वक्तवन्तौ सुपर्णाविव
>> > अविद्याकामकर्मवासनाश्रयलिङ्गोपाध्यात्मेश्वरौ ।
>> > a) Atma, which has for an adjunct  a body that is the base for
>> > desire, karma and vAsanas (subconscious tendencie, or traces of earlier
>> > actions) and b) Isvara are like two birds which clutched (embraced) a
>> > which has roots upwards, branches downwards, is called Asvattha (cross
>> > reference BG 15.1 - 3), is born from the source called Avyakta , is
>> > known as Kshetra (cf. BG 13.4), and is the substrate of the fruits of
>> > action of all creatures.
>> > तयोः परिष्वक्तयोः अन्यः एकः क्षेत्रज्ञो लिङ्गोपाधिवृक्षमाश्रितः पिप्पलं
>> > कर्मनिष्पन्नं सुखदुःखलक्षणं फलं स्वादु अनेकविचित्रवेदनास्वादरूपं स्वादु
>> > अत्ति भक्षयत्युपभुङ्क्ते अविवेकतः ।
>> > Of those two who have clutched the tree, one is the Kshetrajna (=Jeeva,
>> > cf. BG, Ch. 13) who has resorted to the tree which is of the form of an
>> > adjunct, due to lack of discrimination eats, i.e. consumes the fruit
>> > Pippala, which is the result of karma, is of the nature of joy (sukham)
>> > sorrow (duHkham) and is tasty on account of the enjoyment of various
>> > experience, .
>> > अनश्नन् अन्यः इतरः ईश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः सर्वज्ञः
>> > (सर्व)सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वरो नाश्नाति । प्रेरयिता
>> > ह्यसावुभयोर्भोज्यभोक्त्रोर्नित्यसाक्षित्वसत्तामात्रेण ।
>> > The other, the eternal, blemishless, omniscient Isvara who is of the
>> > of consciousness, is liberated, and has (sarva)sattva [=maayaa] as an
>> > adjunct, does not consume [the fruit].
>> > स तु अनश्नन् अन्यः अभिचाकशीति पश्यत्येव केवलम् । दर्शनमात्रं हि तस्य
>> > प्रेरयितृत्वं राजवत् ॥
>> > He, the other who is not consuming, only witnesses. Like a king his
>> > causal-agency is being merely a witness.
>> > RegardsN. Siva Senani
>> >  Upaadhi = adjunct. Adjunct is something which stands next to it,
>> > is not a part of it. For instance, when we say that a crystal has a rose
>> > for an adjunct (the crystal, colourless, will actually look red due to
>> > rose placed next to it), the implication is that the qualities of the
>> > adjunct are superimposed on the thing of interest. Here, the qualities
>> > avidyaa are imposed on Brahman and we call that entity as Jeeva. As Sri
>> > Subrahmanyam pointed out sometime back, Isvara also is Brahman with
>> > as an adjunct. This is the reason, the two birds are called sakhaayau -
>> > entities are called sakhA when the reason for their manifestation is the
>> > same: it is avdiyaa here. Here avyakta means undifferentiated mAyA,
>> > called mUlaprakRti. प्रेरयितृत्वम् = the property of being a
>> > one who causes. Here the sense is that Isvara causes the result of
>> > i.e. Isvara is the reason every creature per force suffers or enjoys the
>> > result of its karma. This concept of how Isvara causes the results of
>> > Karma - darSanamaatreNa - is what differentiates Vedaanta from the
>> > of Purvamimaamsaa which does not admit of God, or where Isvara has no
>> > either in creation (they don't admit creation, for the world is
>> > beginningless for all that we know), sustenance (every one begets the
>> > result of his Kama, and Isvara has no role) or dissolution (they don't
>> > admit dissolution).
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list